Washington v. Equifax

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Alicia D Washington,
Plaintiff,
v.
Equifax,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-03314-PHX-DJH
ORDER
Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Defendant”) removed this case
from the San Marcos Justice Court of Maricopa County to this Court on September 10,
2025. (Doc. 1). A week later the Court set a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference for
November 17, 2025. (Doc. 8). The parties submitted a Joint Rule 26(f) Report in advance
of the Conference (Doc. 10), but Plaintiff did not appear. The Court issued an Order
requiring Plaintiff to show cause by November 24, 2025, why she did not appear, noting
that “Failure to timely show cause may result in the dismissal of this matter for failure
to prosecute.” (Doc. 12 at 2). Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order.
Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co.
v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). A federal district
court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Link v.
Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31 (1962). In appropriate circumstances, the
Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without notice or hearing. Id.
at 633. In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the
Case 2:25-cv-03314-DJH Document 13 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
case, the Court must weigh the following five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk
of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their
merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,
1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).
“The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the
fourth factor cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus, the key factors are prejudice
and availability of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir.
1990).
The first two factors almost always favor dismissal in most cases, and they most
certainly do here. Plaintiff’s failure to show up to a Court appearance and failure to respond
to the Court’s show cause Order both delays the resolution of litigation and hinders the
Court in managing its docket. The third factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because
there is no prejudice to the Defendant if Plaintiff does not prosecute her case. The fourth
will always weigh against dismissal and it does so here as well. If the case is dismissed, it
will not be tried on its merits. The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether a less
drastic alternative is available. The less drastic alterative readily available to the Court is
to allow for the case to be dismissed without prejudice. Otherwise, a dismissal for failure
to prosecute is normally an adjudication on the merits. See Fed. R. Civ Proc. 41(b).
Therefore, the Court will dismiss this case for failure to prosecute without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to
terminate this matter.
Dated this 1st day of December, 2025.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-03314-DJH Document 13 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 2